Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> [using vmi rom] >> IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests. > > yes - but de-facto contradicted by the Xen paravirt_ops patches sent to > lkml ;)
Yep. The fact that it is possible to do that doesn't imply that it is the best solution. Oh, and btw: What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't use the vmi interface? >>> the QA matrix is gonna be a _mess_. >> I fail to see how xen-via-vmirom instead of xen-via-paravirt_ops >> reduces the QA effort. You still have 5 Hypervisors you have to test >> against. > > yes, just like we have thousands of separate PC boards to support. But > as long as the basic ABI is the same, the QA effort on the Linux kernel > side is alot more focused. xen and vmware are still two very different hypervisors from the memory mangement point of view. I doubt moving the abstraction line within the linux kernel from paravirt_ops to vmi makes QA easier. cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
